Talk:Days of Our Lives/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article is being reassessed because it does not at present meet the GA criteria. In particular, some of the sources are unreliable, some passages are insufficiently referenced, there is a trivia section, unnecessary detail, and the lead is not a summary of the article. Geometry guy 11:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is not bad overall, but is rather patchy: here are some examples... "The show has also been parodied by the television sitcom Friends, some cast members made crossovers on the show. Such would include Kristian Alfonso,[18] Roark Critchlow,[19] Matthew Ashford, Kyle Lowder, and Alison Sweeney." "In the 1990s, the show branched out into supernatural storylines, which critics immediately panned, as it was seen as a departure from more realistic storylines for which the show had originally become known." The storyline section uses the narrative present once. By all means use it throughout, but please do not jump from narrative present to past tense. Also, do not weave ratings information into the storyline section - it is out of place and confusing. "devised to keep viewers tuned in while rival network ABC's soaps were preempted due to the 1984 Summer Olympics" - meaning? "In June of 2010, a beautifully written story for matriarch Alice Horton passing away is written". Wikipedia can do her better justice than this badly written and unencyclopedic sentence. "Many writing changes occurred after Laiman left the series in 1989 and would not become stable again until James E. Reilly started with the show in 1993." "However, this first golden period for NBC daytime proved to be short-lived, as Days' ratings began to decline in 1977." Although a minor problem this is indicative of unencyclopedic prose (writing in the moment). "It is only one point behind the #2 daytime drama B&B, and has beat that soap on several days during the season, in terms of total viewers." Ugly, non-neutral, unsourced, and unencyclopedic prose. "The theme has only been modified three times since Days premiered: in 1972, in 1993, when the opening titles were changed to computerized visuals, and in 2004, with an orchestral arrangement that was only used in eight episodes, at which time the theme was reverted back to the 1993 arrangement, and is the one currently used." Once the article is in better shape overall, a good copyedit would be helpful to eliminate redundancies such as "Days... has won a number of awards..."
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See WP:LEAD: for example, the second paragraph appears not to be covered in the article (and thus makes uncited claims).
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See below.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Unreliable sources include bethsdayspage.com, members.aol.com/jason476, and www.curtalliaume.com. There are also question marks over soapcentral.com, OVguide.com and michaelfairmansoaps.com (especially as this citation is referring to a reader's post by "Suzanne"!). Furthermore a reference to Daytime Confidential links instead to thaindian.com and the Yahoo music link should be replaced, if possible, by a direct link to Steve Huey's article in All Music Guide. Citation is missing and needed in several sections, including "Executive producing and head writing team", "Broadcast history" and "External distribution" (which is also a poor section title).
	2c. it contains no original research.	The "Fans" section is trivia, and OR by synthesis. The section title "Best-remembered stories" is OR, and the opinion (that these stories are particularly memorable) should be attributed to the source.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Excessive detail in several places (e.g., the broadcast history and distribution).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The "broadcast history" section is promotional, perhaps pending the threatened end of the series.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	See the peer review for concerns about fair use (and also the recent FAC).
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Further comments

I'm now closing this as a GA delist. Geometry guy 22:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]